|
James Debono
Labour MP Charles Buhagiar has sent a mixed message over the MLP’s opposition to the extension of building zones, after repeatedly asking why certain areas had not been included in the new scheme during sessions held by the parliamentary committee for development and planning.
Buhagiar is insisting he was simply using these examples to show the Cabinet’s criteria were wrong.
But his declarations in the committee have given the impression that he favoured the inclusion of some of these lands. Referring to a stretch of land in Xghajra next to the proposed Smartcity development, Buhagiar asked: “why shouldn’t this piece of land be also included in the new scheme?”
When Minister Austin Gatt replied that the government had no intention of doing so, Buhagiar said: “I feel that since this piece of land conforms to the criteria established by the Cabinet, this land should also be included.”
Referring to another piece of land between the Mater Die Hospital and the University, Buhagiar asked: “What is the problem with including this land too?” – Buhagiar, an architect by profession, had presented an application on this land back in July 2003.
Referring to another area in Mellieha, Buhagiar remarked: “Here someone had made a submission so that this site, which touches two sides of three... I would like to know why this site does not qualify.”
During one of the meetings
Buhagiar criticised the government for only considering written submissions for inclusion in the new schemes: “You cannot simply exclude a piece of land from development simply because the owner was abroad or is an emigrant. We had many cases like this. Emigrants also own lands and farms in infill pockets… and just because they are not in Malta they have been left out.”
Environment Minister George Pullicino described Buhagiar’s behaviour as a clear case of “undeclared conflict of interest” last Thursday in a press conference following the parliamentary vote taken on the extension of development boundaries.
Buhagiar does not deny bringing up questions over other sites that should have been included according to the government’s criteria.
According to the Labour MP, this strategy was intended to illustrate the fact that Cabinet criteria are so liberal and so subjective that much more land actually qualifies for development.
“In our opinion the criteria chosen are wrong. This strategy is not to be interpreted to mean that I wanted more land to be included within the development boundaries but to illustrate that government’s exercise is not based on serious planning considerations which aim to balance development with environment protection and enhancement.”
MaltaToday had asked all members of the house committee to state whether they had a professional interest in the lands they had proposed in the new scheme. MPs George Pullicino, Tonio Borg, Austin Gatt, Roderick Galdes and Charles Buhagiar denied having any professional, personal or family interest in any of the lands proposed.
During the meetings minister Pullicino himself had declared a professional interest dating back to 1996 on one of the sites discussed. But Labour MP Charles Buhagiar qualified his no by adding that having been in practice for more than 27 years, he does not exclude the possibility that amongst the areas chosen for inclusion there were sites which over the years his office had submitted planning applications.
Buhagiar claims he had only presented one amendment on a site in Dingli after he had pointed out that the area proposed for inclusion did not meet the criteria in terms of the required depth.
|
